Readers' comments

Honduras is a Roman Catholic country. I lay the blame on the Vatican for its promotion of homophobia. Yes, it's the "God loves everyone" but the Vatican does not give equality to gays.
It's like inviting a gay to a party and not allowing him or her to go into the main party room. Just sit in the hall gays.http://stories4hotbloodedlesbians.com

I am a Gay person who lives a secret life in Honduras. My country is a conservative christian place, yet there´s no Law against homosexuality. However, there is persecution. Gays are killed regularly and specially the trans community suffers jail and beatings even by the Police. There are organisations of Gay Rights in the country, however the main probleme I face is society and the need of living a secret life. I wish I could migrate to a more welcoming place, but apparently there´s no choice of seeking assylum even though I live a life similar to the live´s lived by the Jews in 1930s Germany. What can I do?

I think the claim that former French colonial states do not have the same anti-LGBT laws as former British colonies is misleading and frankly untrue. It obscures the complex histories of colonial law-making and the sources of legalised LGBT discrimination.

Since we are at it, I'd be interested to find out what support is available to sexual minority members in EU countries where homosexuality is socially unacceptable.

Let me remind you that there are a number of EU countries at present which have so far demonstrated not just a stagnant, but regressive trend with regards to the advancement of human rights, and gay rights in particular.

I'm also slightly concerned about people overlooking the fact that homophobia need not be enshrined into law - as is the case in Russia - in order for it to exist and drive people out of their home country.

Speaking of Russian GLBT population, I hear people use the term persecution when in fact the very notion presumes that a minority is being treated cruelly over a period of time after they have already been, in some way, socially accepted.

I'm afraid recent history goes to prove gay people in Russia have been suffering the fate the media are now pawing at for quite some time, except no one appeared interested in broadcasting it previously.

what about child molestors or sex offendors??? I am not including LBGT as criminally deviant, but if it is based on a combination of sexual orientation and law, how can we discriminate against those who have sexual preferences outside our laws...we are accepting asylum claims based on our laws and morales and criticizing other countries for having laws and morales

what about child molestors or sex offendors??? I am not including LBGT as criminally deviant, but if it is based on a combination of sexual orientation and law, how can we discriminate against those who have sexual preferences outside our laws...we are accepting asylum claims based on our laws and morales and criticizing other countries for having laws and morales

what about child molestors or sex offendors??? I am not including LBGT as criminally deviant, but if it is based on a combination of sexual orientation and law, how can we discriminate against those who have sexual preferences outside our laws...we are accepting asylum claims based on our laws and morales and criticizing other countries for having laws and morales

This doesn't really make sense but makes the common mistake of introducing an unrelated issue (child abusers) to cloud the debate. Why would any country in the world admit as a refugee someone whose basis for claiming protection is that he has committed acts which are illegal here too! Now, have that discussion if you wish, but it's well off topic here, unless - despite your disclaimer - you do equate gays with criminals.

I believe, jawnytee is referring to the issue of persecution based on sexual orientation, of which some psychologist argue that paedophilia is just that, a sexual preference/orientation albeit one that many western society have recently decided is wrong and therefore illegal.

Anyway jawnytee is right to ask the question, i think the answer is that society feels that it is not only justified but is also obligated to "persecute" child sex perpetrators but has lost the justification and public support to persecute those who fall in the LGBT bracket.

Sure, asylum and refugee status have traditionally been accorded to the religiously, politically or ethnically downtrodden, but sexual preference opens up a Pandora's Box. Laws, morality and taboos exist for a reason. Is it our place as one society to upturn the ethics in another?

It's one thing to say it's socially kind of taboo... it's an entirely different thing to say that if you're found out, you'll be put to death. I mean, there's a gap there in terms of persecution, asylum is meant to protect lives, not feelings.

I think it's a good idea to not allow people to be sentenced to death for things they are born with, like their race or sexuality, and to give them asylum in a country that does not want to kill or jail them for these things. If there was a society killing off left-handed people I'd say we should give them asylum too.

Religion gets in as well as political persecution although they're both choices, because we have decided protecting freedom of conscience is important too.

So, yes, there are excellent reasons for the current categories of asylum. Any more slippery slope nonsense?

"I think it's a good idea to not allow people to be sentenced to death for things they are born with, like their race or sexuality"

Assuming that homosexuality is genetic, then we can probably surmise that all sexuality is inborn. If so, then what to do about child molesters, incest, and other forms of sexuality even we in the liberal West disapprove of?

Notwithstanding our urges and preferences, action is a choice. And homosexuals in even the most oppressive cultures are not oppressed or killed for the urges they harbor but the acts they commit.

Do we jail people for harboring politically incorrect sexual fantasies? Of course not. But once you act on it, then you must be willing to bear the consequences.

My contentions are not "slippery slope nonsense". They are rational and logical. It is folks like you who have a special place in their hearts for gays, lesbians and transgender people ONLY that make no sense. Surely you can concede that sexuality is far more diverse.

I can't figure out why you thnk some people ONLY support equal rights and asylum for gays? Do u think we turn our consciences off when we hear of the torture of dissidents in other countries? Where is your oh-so-logical evidence for that?

I don't know dude, maybe because sexual contact between two consenting adults is a little different than molesting children? For the record, if people are being jailed for incest (a highly rare event compared to what happens to gays in much of the world), then I'd give them asylum too. But this rarely (if ever?) comes up.

Incest is a social taboo mostly because of the genetic risks, but I don't see any problems if two consenting related adults want to have sex without procreating.

The bottom line is that while there may be some inconsistencies or hypocrisies around the edges of asylum law (for very special cases), it is madness to allow CONSENTING ADULTS to be jailed for expressing their natural sexuality. You don't get to claim the mantle of reason just because you think gays are icky or something.

The age of 18 is an arbitrary milestone. And as we all know, it used to be that those we consider children today were routinely married off when they hit puberty. From a biological standpoint, we know that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "mature" 14-yr-old having sex with a 30-yr-old. But in our society, that would be considered a crime. Why no "asylum" for him?

Incest is taboo but when we're talking about 2 complicit adults, why interfere? What business is it of yours to tell them they cannot love whom they want to love (to borrow an argument from the gay community)? Do they deserve reprieve, too?

What is "natural" comes in many forms. It may involve 2 consenting adults, more than 2 consenting adults, or maybe just one and something else. Some of this may be legal, some of it may be socially unacceptable. But if society happens to disapprove should they all be accorded asylum because they are just acting out their natural yearnings?

Of course, it's not logic and reason that dictate these decisions but politics and emotion.

Because we know that humans aren't fully mentally developed until later than age 14. 18 is indeed an arbitrary cutoff, but we can be much safer when saying that an 18 year old can reasonably consent to actions than a 14 year old. This is why 14 year olds cannot vote or do many other things.

I already answered your second paragraph. It is none of my business, provided they don't procreate.

By the rest of your "logic", if society happens to disapprove of a particular religion should we just ignore the practitioners being jailed or killed? How about Christians in the Middle East being murdered? I guess it's really easy for them to just practice in secret, or convert, so no big deal, right?

There is an easy way to prove you are gay but I don't think most immigration workers would be comfortable with it.

And Edwardong...can you imaging what it might feel like living in a country like Zimbabwe where the President indicates you should be killed? Sounds like 1930's in Germany. Think before you speak. You may begin to sound credible.

Edwardong I am not being negative. But if we really want to talk about protecting minorities against violence and hatred this may be a good place to start by offering asylum. If we had stood up stronger in the 1930's maybe we could have saved more of the 6 million who were condemned to death.

To apologise, just say, "I'm sorry", full stop. Saying "I'm sorry if I offended you" is saying that I'm not sorry for what I said, I'm just sorry you feel offended, so it's really your fault. Unless you are a politician, or under legal advice, this is the worst sort of apology to proffer.

Not the best way to try and garner support for your cause, and may even swing supporters away from you.

Best practice would have been to stop writing after, "Sounds like 1930's in Germany", i.e. avoid anything personal.

Actually, I wasn't supporting you - the tone of your comment suggested that gay folk under the threat of persecution weren't deserving of protection, and that you felt that they were an unworthy group, as if you felt they were getting 'special rights' for wanting to live. Perhaps I was wrong.